Garrard/Mercer Counties Ky. 152 Bridge Replacement Kennedy Mill Bridge over Herrington Lake Item No. 7-1116.00

Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference Minutes

A Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference was held on Friday, February 10, 2017 at 10:00 A.M. at the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s District 7 Office, 763 West New Circle Road, Lexington, Kentucky on the replacement of the existing Kennedy Mill (Ky. 152) Bridge over Herrington Lake. Ananias Calvin III opened the meeting and welcomed everyone to the Conference. Mr. Calvin informed those in attendance that the Conference was being taped to make sure all questions could be posted on the Construction Procurement website. Mr. Calvin had all the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s employees and the Project Consultants introduce themselves to the Contractors in attendance. The following is a list of the Contractors in attendance: Richard Hentzer C. J. Mahan Construction Michael Horne C. J. Mahan Construction Mark Dickerson Massman Construction Company Tanner Genenbacher Massman Construction Company Joel Covitz PCL Civil Constructors Taylor Taluskie Terracon Ron Ebelhar Terracon Joel Halterman Walsh Construction Meredith Oder Walsh Construction Pete Revart Walsh construction Andrew Schad Javier Steel Michael Merida Kay & Kay Contracting Brandon Stidham Johnson Bros. Corp. Ryan Kendall Marine Solutions Inc. Doug McCrae C. J. Mahan Construction William G. (Bill) Praderio Massman Construction Company Kevin Wolfe Haydon Bridge Company Bryan Cavan Javier Steel Bob Schenck Terracon Chris Ovey KYLECEX Phil Crump Mago Adam DeMargel Stupp Bridge Company Vincent Lemienx The Allen Company Inc. Joe Burchett Bush & Burchett Inc. Ben Gillis Bluegrass Contracting Corp. Bobby Upchurch Mago Construction Company David Montgomery IMI Hunter Judy Hall Contracting Jim Lawler PCL Civil Constructors The following is a list of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s Employees and the Project Consultants in attendance:

Brandon Lowe WMB Inc. Ed Odell WMB Inc. Darrin Beckett KYTC C.O. Geotech Casey Smith KYTC D-7 Highway Design Daniel Kucela KYTC D-7 Structures Joseph Franchino KYTC D-7 Structures Ryan Gossom KYTC C.O. Construction Katy Stewart KYTC C.O. Construction Matt Simpson KYTC D-7 Branch Manager for Project Delivery & Preservation Rob Johnson KYTC D-7 Richmond Section Supervisor Tyler Mills KYTC D-7 Highway Design Robin Sprague KYTC D-7 Branch Manager for Project Development Joshua Samples KYTC D-7 Section Supervisor for Highway Design Rick Holman KYTC D-7 Richmond Section Ananias Calvin III KYTC D-7 Highway Design Adam Crace Stantec Mark Litkenhus Stantec Derek Adams KYTC D-7 Environmental Coordinator The following is a list of the meeting discussions and questions:

1.) Derek Adams spoke about the Special Note for Tree Removal. He mentioned the time restrictions for cutting down trees (No cutting of trees between June and July) and presented a map that identified the trees that will have to be removed. Handouts of the map were available for anyone who desired one.

2.) Mr. Adams spoke about the Special Note for Interpretive Sign Installation. He mentioned the concrete pad for the signs as shown on the plans and the instruction notes to install the signs that are in the proposal packet. He also informed the group that the signs will actually be at the Garrard County Maintenance Garage instead of the Mercer County Maintenance Garage. He said that this works better for our delivery.

3.) In the Communicating All Promises (CAP), located in the proposal packet, the asbestos inspection has already been performed. The letter received from this inspection is in the proposal packet. The lead paint inspection still will be required before the demolition of the existing bridge.

4.) The permit (waters of the U.S.) will expire March 18, 2017 because all the nationwide permits

will expire on that date. The Corp of Engineers are in the process of renewing the permit. The new permit will be provided to the Contractor and we do not anticipate any changes. If there are changes, we will let the Contractor know of the changes. A copy of the environmental document is available.

5.) Ananias Calvin III read the letter about the conference that was with the proposal to make sure

that everyone present made sure that they had signed the roster. This letter stated that any company that was interested in bidding on the subject project or being part of a joint venture must have been represented at the meeting by one person of sufficient authority to bind the company. Only companies represented at the meeting will be eligible to have their bids opened

at the date of the letting.

6.) Ed Odell spoke about the Special Note for Work on Herrington Lake. The note was about the way the lake fluctuates wildly throughout the year, something that the Contractor would have to deal with on a daily basis. There was mention how to access the lake. There are several commercial boat ramps available, but it does not seem that any of them are capable of handling heavy equipment. KU has recently completed some major work on the dam and in order to get their equipment in, they built a new boat ramp just upstream from the dam, and has made this area available to the Contractor for access into the lake and out. There may be some space in this area for layout and prep area. The Contractor must contact KU in order to gain access to this ramp. Ananias Calvin III will provide the contact information (Plant Manager at Power Station).

Question: Do you know if a drawing that shows the upper vetch area of that ramp is available or will that just be based on our contact? Up until last year, the area was going to be quite significant, but KU has recently constructed a sonar panel in this area, but there is still room for a construction layout, but that will have to be addressed directly with KU.

7.) Mr. Odell mentioned that there are three marinas on the lake in this area and it is very

congested in this area. Everything must be done to stay away from the marinas. He also mentioned that a portion of the Lake will have to be left open to lake traffic 24/7, a minimum of 100’.

8.) The existing structure is an old truss structure built in extremely deep water. The tallest pier is

over 200’ tall which is in serious distress at this time. Need to be real careful not to nudge the existing bridge while constructing the proposed bridge. Demolition of the existing bridge is part of this project’s contract. There is an existing underwater structure downstream, which may be a pier from the old existing bridge, sitting about elevation 635, which is well below the normal pool elevation. The existing piers can be taken down to the 635 elevation and should be alright to leave them in the water. The old piers were built by a company called Chicago Chimney and the piers were built like a chimney. The super structure should be removed from the water because of the potential of lead paint (Environmental Analysis will have a say on whether you may be able to leave the super structure in the lake). The structure is light and can be pulled out of the lake and dismantled.

Question: Will the traffic be maintained on the existing bridge? Yes.

Question: What about actual maintenance of the existing bridge while the proposed bridge is under construction?

Question: Will there be any discussion about raising the 635 elevation? The 635 elevation is about 90’ down the level of the low pool. Yes, there may be some leeway to raising this elevation some, since the elevation was based on the existing underwater structure. The tie-downs for the drill rigs was 40’ below the water surface at the time of the drilling. This left enough vertical clearance for recreational traffic to pass through. Question: Did you say that these were above water? No, the tie-downs were below water. Question: There is a note that says that this has to be below water. Will it be allowed to be

above? This will have to be addressed when we come to this. Question: Is the 100’ water travel way set in stone? This can be changed. A travel way is required at all times. This has to be shown in the Contractor’s maintenance of traffic plan subject to approval by whoever will review it. Question: You mentioned that you not nudge the piers? That means you cannot anchor anything to the piers during construction. Question: Do you anticipate the weight limit on the existing bridge changing? The weight limit was revised from 3 Tons to 10 Tons recently because of rehab on the bridge. If there will be a change in the future, it would not be an increase.

9.) Darrin Beckett presented a power point presentation to discuss the geotechnical issues of the project. He summarized the subsurface conditions and foundation types and sizes. Pier 1 is the most challenging feature of the bridge. Small voids were encountered. The drill shaft foundations were discussed (how many shafts were in each abutment and each pier). There is spread footing foundation in Abutment 1 wings and Abutment 2.

10.) There are special notes for Drilled Shafts, Non-Destructive Testing in Drilled Shafts, Vibration

Monitoring and for Work on Herrington Lake.

11.) The Special Notes for Non-Destructive Testing in Drilled Shafts shall be added as an addendum in the Proposal Notes. Some copies were handed out at the meeting.

12.) There are several geotechnical reports for various stages (structure, roadway) of the project.

Links to these reports can be found under Project Related Information on the Construction Procurement Website.

13.) We are anticipating a relatively small amount of cavities. Envisioned excavating past the

cavity, and filling the rock socket with concrete. Concrete will be paid as cavity stabilization (Cu. Yd.). Once filling the cavity with concrete, then go back and re-drill through. Payment will be made for re-drilling in LF.

14.) There are a lot of notes on the quantity sheets that inform you how the numbers were obtained.

There is so much uncertainty how we come up with the numbers and has a lot of room for change.

Question: Are these quantities “as directed” then? We will be requiring Sonar Caliper and Video Inspection. There are some guidelines in the notes, but it will come down to as directed by the Engineer. We will get all the information and then have an agreement in the field when this needs to be done, or if does not need to be done, an agreement on every shaft based on the information that we have. There is a note that says that the Sonar Caliper and Video Inspection is a tool to be used, but we will still exercise judgment. We will be using the Sonar Caliper in conjunction with the Video Inspection to gather as much information to make decisions about whether or not we need to do this.

15.) Concerning testing and monitoring, we will be requiring a Shaft Inspection Device (SID or

Mini SID). This work is incidental to the drilled shafts. This is expressed in the special notes for drilled shafts. There is Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) and Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP), which are two different methods of integrity testing for drill shafts. These two methods should be done in conjunction with each other. There is Sonar Calipering and Video Inspection. There is also vibration monitoring on the existing bridge. There are special notes for vibration monitoring. Make sure you notice what all (Preconstruction surveys, etc.) is included in the vibration monitoring. This is a lump sum item and includes everything that is addressed in the notes.

16.) The Special Note for Non-Destructive Testing in Drilled Shafts involves Sonar Caliper Testing

to detect cavities, evaluate verticality, and provide a profile of the rock socket. It involves Video Inspection to view rock sockets, casings, etc. It involves Crosshole Sonic Logging to evaluate the integrity of the drilled shafts within the reinforcing cage. It involves Thermal Integrity Profiling to further evaluate the integrity of the drilled shafts within the reinforcing cage and to the edge of the shafts (this method require embedded sensors, believe we can get better data this way). There items are separate pay items in addition to the drilled shaft installation. Question: There is a general note that talks about an optional foundation for abutment 1 spread footing on rock. What are the parameters of that? The optional spread footing will still require you to bear the spread footing at the bottom of the shaft location which means there will be a considerable amount of rock excavation if you elected to do that. We were trying to minimize the amount of rock excavation. Question: We look at the site and the core borings for that abutment 1 were not available. Core borings B-1 and B-2 are missing. This boring could be at a separate place. We might be able to locate it. **The B-1 and B-2 cores have since been found and are available for viewing at the KYTC geotechnical branch.** Question: You specified that the casing will be embedded in the bedrock, concreted and sealed, and does not tell us what your minimum would be or could we propose a 180’? Is there a minimum that you are looking for? We worded that whereby we intentionally wanted you to propose that. You are responsible for providing the seal. You should keep in mind that both of these shafts the rock lines are not horizontal. When you submit your drill shaft installation plan, we will probably discuss this in further detail. The depth you send your divers down to seal would be your special divers.

17.) The letting date is February 24, 2017.

18.) The fixed completion date is November 29, 2019.

Question: On the page in the Specs for the fixed completion date it says that there is a continuing note about extension of contract time that said that it would be at the discretion of the Engineer. What does this mean? If there is a change-order or a change in the conditions of the work, a change in circumstances, then the time can be extended. Question: Is there any chance of extending the letting date? There may be more involved in

this project whereby it would take longer to put together the proposal. This question would have to be answered by the Project Team. A special letting date can be scheduled. It would have to be put together by the Construction Procurement Division.

19.) A bid item was set up for the maintenance repairs of the existing bridge for the purposes of

maintaining traffic on the existing bridge during construction of the proposed bridge. To date, maintenance has been done in late 2009 - early 2010 to the truss members and after that, additional repairs were finished last April. Based on the last inspection, which is done every year, there were 14 to 15 identified locations that will need to be retrofitted. These locations involve reinforcing gusset plates and strengthening tension members within 2.5’ - 3.0’ of the gusset plate connection. A list has been created for these locations. The design plans for these identified locations will be similar to the previously repaired locations. Because of this, plans and details for these repairs should be straight forward. Besides that, there may be some additional minor deck work that may be needed in the duration of the project since the deck is currently in bad shape. It was emphasized that there is not a reasonable detour route around this bridge so it is necessary to keep the existing bridge open during construction.

Question: Will detailed plan sheets be given to the contractors for the repairs of the existing bridge? Yes, the plans with the details of each location be provided for the repairs to be done. Question: With the fixed completion date in place, if there is a situation, where the contractors work was impeded due to having to keep the existing bridge in place, is that grounds for an extension of the fixed completion date in the engineers opinion? It will have to be looked at and determined based on what the work is. It will be based on what comes up. Question: So will the contractors bid be based on the assumption that work on the proposed bridge will not be impacted by having to maintain the existing bridge? Even if it required shutting down construction to the new bridge? The bid should reflect knowing that repairs will have to be done to the existing bridge. Having to shut down construction of the new bridge will be up to the contractor’s digression.

20.) Once the initial repairs from the list of locations have been completed, just about everything

that has significant deterioration would be repaired. Outside of this list, it is not anticipated that there will be any other major repairs needed for the duration of the project.

Question: Will the contractors be getting this list? Yes, it will be submitted through Ananias.

21.) A special note was included for the web camera construction monitoring system. There are 3 cameras that will be set up, one on each side of the bridge and one in the middle. There will be a change in the note in that the locations of these cameras can be moved during the period of the construction project. The location of the cameras will be determined by the field engineer. This special note was included in the interest of that Cabinet’s Division of Construction Office in Frankfort.

Question: Can the request for a later bid date be considered since this project is a lot more complicated than the typical project and having additional time for bidding will help in the production of reasonable bid prices? That is not a question that can be answered in this conference, it will have to be asked to those in Frankfort. We will pose the question and provide an answer on the Construction Procurement Website.

Question: Where did the shaft bracing concept come from? That was part of a joint venture between the design consultant and the bridge office. It was basically an extrapolation of what was proposed for the shaft caps. If the contractor can come up with a better and more efficient way for providing that bracing, then it will be considered. But there needed to be something to include in the proposal to help in estimation and bid. The biggest difference here is that the work will be done in deeper water. Question: To get a better grasp on the time extension for bidding, how much time extension would be needed? Any amount of time, whether it be a week or two to a month. Would like to request it to be moved to the next letting. Would making a special letting work? Either 2 weeks or next letting, but would prefer a special letting. Question: What is the deadline for getting questions in and when do you plan on issuing the responses? The responses are usually issued as the questions come in. Some of the answers to previous questions are already posted. Question: Is the sign in sheet going to be posted or can we get a copy? That will have to be checked to see if that can be done. Conference was then dismissed.

Garrard/Mercer Counties KY 152 Bridge Replacement Kennedy Mill Bridge over Herrington Lake Item No. 7-1116.00 Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference Questions and Answers

A Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference was held on Friday, February 10, 2017 at 10:00 A.M. at the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s District 7 Office, 763 West New Circle Road, Lexington, Kentucky on the replacement of the existing Kennedy Mill (Ky. 152) Bridge over Herrington Lake. Below is a list of the questions and answers that were addressed at the aforementioned conference.

1. Do you know if a drawing that shows the upper vetch area of that ramp is available or will that just be based on our contact?

a. KU has recently constructed a sonar panel in this area, however there is still room for a construction layout. Anything else will have to be addressed directly with KU. The contact for KU is: Jeff Fraley ~ General Manager EW Brown Plant 859-748-4401 Jeffrey.fraley@lge-ku.com

2. Will traffic be maintained on the existing bridge? a. Yes, part of the proposal is to maintain the existing bridge such that traffic can be

maintained on it during the construction of the proposed bridge. There is no reasonable detour around this crossing.

3. What about actual maintenance of the existing bridge while the proposed bridge is under construction.

a. Plans with details of each location to be rehabilitated will be provided. 4. Will there be any discussion about cutting the existing piers higher than the specified 635

elevation? a. The 635 elevation is about 90’ down the level of the low pool. Yes, there may be some

leeway to raising this elevation some. The elevation was based on another existing underwater structure. The tie-downs for the drill rigs was 40’ below the water surface at the time of the drilling. This left enough vertical clearance for recreational traffic to pass through.

5. Is the 100’ water travel way set in stone? a. This can be changed. A travel way is required at all times. This has to be shown in the

Contractor’s maintenance of traffic plan which is subject to approval.

6. Will it be possible to anchor to the existing piers?

a. No, nothing can be anchored to the existing piers.

7. Do you anticipate the weight limit on the existing bridge changing? a. The weight limit was upgraded from 3 tons to 10 tons after a recent rehabilitation of the

bridge. Even with additional rehab, we do not anticipate an increase in the weight limit.

8. Are the quantities for excavating past the cavity, refilling the cavity with concrete, and re-drilling “as directed” by the field engineer?

a. We will be requiring Sonar Caliper and Video Inspection. There are some guidelines in the notes, but it will come down to as directed by the Engineer. We will get all the information and then have an agreement in the field when this needs to be done, or if does not need to be done, an agreement on every shaft based on the information that we have. There is a note that says that the Sonar Caliper and Video Inspection is a tool to be used, but we will still exercise judgment. We will be using the Sonar Caliper in conjunction with the Video Inspection to gather as much information to make decisions about whether or not we need to do this.

9. There is a general note that talks about an optional foundation for abutment 1 spread footing on rock. What are the parameters of that?

a. The optional spread footing will still require you to bear the spread footing at the bottom of the shaft location which means there will be a considerable amount of rock excavation if you elected to do that. We were trying to minimize the amount of rock excavation.

10. We looked at the site and the core borings for that abutment 1 were not available. Core borings B-1 and B-2 are missing.

a. The B-1 and B-2 cores have since been found and are available for viewing at the KYTC geotechnical branch.

11. A specification that the casing will be embedded in the bedrock, concreted and sealed, however does not tell us what your minimum would be or could we propose a 180’? Is there a minimum that you are looking for?

a. We worded it with the intention that the contractor proposes that. The contractor is responsible for providing the seal. You should keep in mind that both of these shafts the rock lines are not horizontal. When you submit your drill shaft installation plan, we will probably discuss this in further detail. At such a depth, it may require the use of special divers.

12. On the page in the Specs for the fixed completion date it says that there is a continuing note about extension of contract time that said that it would be at the discretion of the Engineer. What will justify that extension?

a. These situations will have to be looked at a case by case basis. A change-order or a change in the conditions of the work, a change in circumstances, may be justification for

a time extension.

13. Will detailed plan sheets be given to the contractors for the repairs of the existing bridge? a. Yes, the plans with the details of each location be provided for the repairs to be done.

14. With the fixed completion date in place, if there is a situation, where the contractors work was

impeded due to having to keep the existing bridge in place, is that grounds for an extension of the fixed completion date in the engineers opinion?

a. It will have to be looked at and determined based on what the work is. It really depends on what comes up.

15. Where did the shaft bracing concept come from? a. That was part of a joint venture between the design consultant and the bridge office. It

was basically an extrapolation of what was proposed for the shaft caps. If the contractor can come up with a better and more efficient way for providing that bracing, then it will be considered. But there needed to be something to include in the proposal to help in estimation and bid. The biggest difference here is that the work will be done in deeper water.

16. What is the deadline for getting questions in and when do you plan on issuing the responses? a. The responses are usually issued as the questions come in. Some of the answers to

previous questions are already posted.